Can mutation and selection increase information?

I'd like to ask CRR ...

Then you might have sent me a message to say you were asking.

bluegenes writes: Rather than saying that a theory itself has a direction, it might be better to say that an explanation of natural history would have to explain the direction that that history has taken. That includes the emergence of many complex organisms in the latter part of that history from relatively simple forms, and the presence of an enormous quantity of species from one or several originals. Put that way, I broadly agree. Although biological "information" is difficult to define and measure, I agree that there appears to have been an enormous increase. And, from the same thread: Message 163 CRR writes: It is the theory of evolution that relies on the gain of copious quantities of genetic information. Creationists are just asking how the theory can be taken seriously when the evidence is that the mutation selection mechanism appears to be insufficient to explain where that information comes from. Here we have the type of creationist claim that I mentioned in the O.P. I'd like to ask CRR and any other creationists for their own views on this. Is it that mutation and selection can produce no new information at all, or is it that they just can't produce enough? Can anyone support either claim?

Yes I think that is a good way to put it. According to the ToE the development of living things has HAD a general direction from simple to more complex organisms, although this does not exclude instances of the reverse direction. I note you agree that there appears to have been an enormous increase in information.

I would say that the mutation selection mechanism can't produce enough new information. This might not be a universal view among ToE skeptics but I think this opinion is fairly widespread; e.g. Kirk Durston, Douglas Axe, Stephen Meyer. In "Undeniable" Douglas Axe says in Chapter 11 " As a finder of inventions, Darwin's evolutionary mechanism is a complete bust, but as we saw in chapter 7, it sometimes comes in handy as a fiddler".

Can anyone support either claim? Well in the 150 years since Darwin published Origin of Species what do our observations show? So far we have seen many examples of changes that could be accomplished by a fiddler; we have seen none that require an inventor.

One oft cited example of evolution is the Peppered Moth. It is quite likely that the dark form arose as a mutation not long before it was first observed in 1811. This produced a new variety but not a new species. The mutation produced a new allele of an existing gene.

quote:

---

This species has two different adult forms. One form of the species, typica, is a pale lighter color that is peppered with black speckles. The other form, carbonaria, is a much darker color that is peppered with light speckles. https://askabiologist.asu.edu/peppered-moth

---

The spread of the dark form is one of the clearest and most easily understood examples of Natural Selection in action. However this is the work of a fiddler, not an inventor. It provides very little support for evolution being able to produce significant amounts of new information.

This is something creationists claim can't happen.

Incorrect.

The problem you evolutionists have is that you all have different definitions of what evolution and the ToE are. You all believe different things.

Go ahead and copy/paste as many quotes from whoever you like, I already know I don't agree with Faith and Dredge on everything.

Tangle writes: Yes, it's a good example of a beneficial mutation followed by natural selection creating a change to the phenotype of a population - evolution in action, observed and proven. This is something creationists claim can't happen.

Who says?

quote:

---

Can mutations produce new information? Yes, depending on what you mean by ‘new’ and ‘information’. Can they account for the evolution of all life on Earth? No!

---

Dr Robert Carter, http://creation.com/mutations-new-information

quote:

---

At this point Darwinists will make a lot of noise about numerous experiments which demonstrate beyond doubt that some mutations can lead to increased fitness, both in humans and in experimental populations. This is certainly true. A recent example is the discovery that a single nucleotide change in ethnic Tibetans (compared with Han Chinese) has allowed them to cope with the chronically low oxygen levels that occur on the high Tibetan plateau.

---

Alex Williams, http://creation.com/...al-mutations-real-or-imaginary-part-1

quote:

---

I cannot find anywhere on our website or in our publications where we make the claim that all mutations are bad. On the contrary, we do believe that certain mutations can have beneficial outcomes, as experimental science has shown

---

Dr. Georgia Purdom, https://answersingenesis.org/...e-there-beneficial-mutations

I could give examples from the Discovery Institute but they don't count because they're not Creationists.

Lee Spetner makes the distinction between random and non-random mutations. He says that there are no examples of random mutations increasing information in the genome. However there are inbuilt mechanisms that can cause non-random genetic changes to respond to environmental events.
https://www.trueorigin.org/spetner3.php

Why would we? English words have nothing to do with evolution.

Unless you're Richard Dawkins who thinks it is like a weasel.

Overall RD has been a Godsend to Darwinian Evolution Skeptics.

Ah, the good ol' equivocation on "random". Genetic changes can respond to environmental events. They are still random with respect to fitness.

There are 2 ways in which this isn't random.
First, the periods of accelerated mutation aren't random in time, they occur when required to adapt to the environment.
Second, they aren't randomly distributed throughout the genome; specific areas are targeted.

So it appears the organism is searching for solutions with a constrained solutions space to adapt to a specific challenge. Perhaps in time we will discover even this isn't entirely random.

Are you saying that none of the genetic differences between humans and chimps constitutes an increase in information?

The genetic differences between humans and chimps almost certainly constitutes a difference in information?
If the non-homologous genes are due to deletions from the genome of a common ancestor then it would be a loss of information.

There are two types of mutations.
1. Mutations that occur randomly in time and space; where time is measured by cell divisions and space is the full length of the genome.
2. Mutations that that are not random in space and time;

they occur at cell division in response to an external trigger
they occur preferentially in some parts of the genome rather than uniformly

They will occur together but type 1 will occur at each cell division and type 2 will occur only when the external trigger happens.

The affect on the phenotype of type 1 will be mostly neutral-harmful and rarely beneficial. These are not goal directed in any way.

However type 2 appear to be goal directed in response to the trigger. If they are random in the target areas of the genome their purpose is still to produce an adaption in response to the stimuli. This will still be the case even if the distribution of harmful-neutral-beneficial is identical in proportions to those produced by type 1. However it is also possible that type 2 targets areas that are more likely to produce beneficial mutations. I doubt there is sufficient evidence to rule this possibility out or in.

They do not appear to be goal directed. In some circumstances they are a response to environmental stress.

If they occur in response to environmental stress and the increased mutation rate helps the organism to adapt to that stress then possibly it is goal directed. The goal is to adapt to the stress.
It's a reasonable hypothesis based on the observations, and should not be excluded at this stage.

They [mutations] are random with respect to fitness.

So long as you remember that does not mean 50% harmful and 50% beneficial. The vast majority of mutations are detrimental, probably including those that code for the same amino acid. There is some evidence that even where the mutation codes for the same amino acid it can affect other things such as the rate of production.

You can have a search that is both goal directed and random.

Suppose there are 100 boxes on a table and I'm told there is a chocolate bar in one of them. I go to the table and start opening boxes at random. I have a goal; I want the chocolate; but the search is random.

Similarly when mutations increase in selected regions in response to an environmental stress there is a good chance that the goal is to adapt to the stressor, even if the mutations are essentially random. Since the hypermutation targets certain areas it is likely these areas have a higher probability of producing a favourable mutation. Conversely hypermutation in other areas of the genome are less likely to produce a mutation favourable to adaptation.

This is a hypothesis. There is insufficient evidence at this time to accept it, but there is even less evidence to reject it.

Keep in mind that in order for a mutation to affect fitness, it must affect the organisms ability to reproduce. So while a mutation that codes for the same amino acid may have energetic effects on a bacterium that may slow it's growth rate enough to give it a slight disadvantage compared to others without the mutation, it is unlikely to have a significant effect on larger organism such as humans.

Why not? We are all dependent for health on the correct ratios of many proteins, enzymes, hormones. If these are incorrect then we could suffer illness or a lack of fitness that could affect our ability to survive, attract a mate, and reproduce. A mutation in the germ cell will affect every cell in our body. In fact I have just such a condition.

RAZD writes: There are two aspects to the question as I see it: is the ratio of beneficial* mutations to non-beneficial mutations greater under stress? is the ratio of beneficial* mutations per unit of time greater under stress? I believe (my opinion) the answers are no and yes. The first ratio can even be lower and still have a greater second ratio.

I believe (my opinion) the answers are maybe and yes.

I suspect that if a part of the genome is targeted for hypermutation then the ratio could change, but I have no other evidence to support or refute that hypothesis at this time.

Further I believe (my opinion) this is an evolved mechanism, as organisms that do this will be selected over those that don't, and that it is a "burn the bridges," do-or-die, last ditch effort at survival.

Which would I think make it a goal directed random search.

JonF writes: You can have a search that is both goal directed and random. Yes. So what?

Good. at least we can agree on that.